Dysgenics/Socialism
Futurist1000 02 May 2007
Dysgenics is happening in every human population now. The drop is around 0.5 to 1.0 I.Q. point per generation, which is quite significant. That means in a generation the amount of people able to carry out the necessary scientific research for progress is dropping. In the U.S. as college professors die out, their knowledge in some sense dies out with them. They may not be replaced by people with an equivalent intelligence. Libraries will be filled with hard earned knowledge, but eventually nobody in the population will be smart enough to be able to use it or understand it. There is however what is called the flynn effect. The flynn effect is a rise in I.Q. scores that has occured accross the entire world. However these I.Q. increases are probably due to better nutrition and seemed to have already leveled off in the 1990's (at least in european countries).
The countries where the most scientific progress occurs perversely have the lowest birthrates. South korea, japan, tawain and europe all have birth rates which are too low to sustain their population levels. Their populations are expected to decrease in the future. Without huge increases in life expectancy eventually enough intelligent people will die off so that progress in science will begin to slow, then possibly stop altogether. In the near future selling nutritional supplements will have become illegal (possibly within the next year). Of course we'll have some really smart and driven people with a personal stash of supplements like ray kurzweil who'll live to 130, but he will be in the minority. There simply won't be enough people who have the forsight needed to extend their life significantly.
In the U.S. we currently have politicians that are offering socialism in disguise. Their plan is nicely called "universal healthcare". It sounds great, but what does "universal healthcare" really mean? It simply entails massive transfers of wealth from people who are productive to those who are unproductive. Sure these costs will be hidden and the government will to its best to fool us into thinking its a great system. The U.S. is currently the leader in medical research and why is that? Because we are the only country that isn't weighed down by huge government beuracracies that will take anyone's wealth as soon as they try to create it (i.e. France). We will definitely get universal healthcare, that's a given. The Democrats will kill any innovation by reducing the profits that biotechnology/pharmaceutical companies are allowed to get. The cognitive elite of this country will be forced to give an ever increasing amount of their money to the poor low I.Q. population. This will be justified on the basis of the unfairness of inequality. This means that medicines that will extend life will never get created. The government beuracracy will become so bloated that no technology will be adopted on a mass scale. In another 60 years a low I.Q. populist leader will take over the U.S. and institute socialism just like Hugo Chavez is doing now in Venezuela.
A democracy allows decision to be made by the masses, not necessarily those who are the most intelligent. The cognitive elite who run all the technology will be overthrown by the general population. Socialism is one of those things that sounds great especially to people with low intelligence. Socialism says you can get something for nothing. So after the elite is overthrown society will continue for a few months, but eventually everything will begin to crumble. Due to enormous problems such as famine, overpopulation and global warming most of the world's population will die out. People will be just too plain stupid to be able to save themselves and will have killed off all the smart people who could have saved them.
This story i've told is somewhat of an exaggeration but many of the problems may very well come up in the future. I am optimistic that we will avoid these problems by adopting technologies that will artificially enhance our own intelligence. Things such as pharmaceuticals, gene therapy, brain-machine connections may be able to do this. I think ultimately though, what i am most worried about is when someone comes along who does not have the same level of intelligence as those who came before him and uses technology that he really doesn't understand to do something for which he does not comprehend the consequences. Okay I know that's a mouthful but let me explain. Think for instance of the 9/11 highjackers. These people did not have the intelligence, forsight or concientousness to create the airplanes they flew or build the buildings they crashed into. Religious and mystical thinking lead them to believe that by killing 3,000 people they would be rewarded as martyrs. Low I.Q. and hyper religiosity are actually being selected for by evolutionary processes. People who are very religious and have a lower I.Q. may end up having the most children. When this type of person is allowed access to technology created by a previous generation who had more forsight/intelligence/secularism I fear that once again disaster may result.
Edited by hrc579, 22 June 2007 - 04:52 PM.
tamalak 03 May 2007
Dysgenics is probably real, but its effects are too slow to stop the progress to the technological singularity. Futurists' average guess is that the singularity is about 120 years away - by that point dysgenics will have reduced the population's average I.Q. by only 3-6 points - and this assumes the Flynn effect is over, but medical advances (and hopefully improvements in diet) might sustain it.
The second part of your post is a bit parinoid. What you describe is a extremely shoddily impemented and extremist form of socialized medicine. If it is done right, socialized medicine offsets its costs with improved productivity due to a healthier population.
John_Ventureville 03 May 2007
>Selection pressures have relaxed and intelligence is no longer of great utility.
I have to disagree with this statement. Intelligence is of key importance for not only individual personal success but so one can provide the necessary resources to offspring so they can also be very successful (especially if they inherited their parents braininess). The intelligent may have fewer children but the odds of these offspring doing well are generally much higher than the kids of the far less bright and ambitious.
If technological progress were moving at a snails pace I would find hrc579's arguments most disturbing. But I think the "brain drain" will not be any real threat within the next 30-50 years of waiting for the Singularity.
Hey, Cookie Monster! Where do you get the notion that futurists on average guess the Singularity is 120 years away??? Most of the prominent experts I have read about say around 2030-2050 it should actually happen.
hrc579's take on a possible very dark future made me think of the many Warhammer 40,000 science fantasy novels I have read. They show a galaxy spanning human empire which is slowly but steadily forgetting key technologies like genetic engineering and teleportation, and what they do remember is often veiled in superstition and religion-like ritual.
a quote from one of the novels:
When uttering the incantation, mark well that the rod is upon and not within the intake. The second incantation should not be uttered until all the fumes have come forth, then the way shall be clear for the sacred words to penetrate unto the heart of the engine. If the mounting be hot say the third rune, if it be cold the fourth rune is more appropriate. For then the wrath of the engine will be aroused...
~The Book of Five Runes
>
This would be one way of learning to use a machine! lol
John Grigg
sponsored ad
bob_d 03 May 2007
so please spare yourself some suffering and seek out some help!In France, Jacques LeFevrier left nothing to chance when he decided to commit suicide. He stood atop a sheer cliff and tied a noose around his neck. He tied the other end of the rope to a large rock. He drank some poison and set fire to his clothes. He even tried to shoot himself at the last moment. He jumped and fired the pistol.
The bullet missed him completely and cut through the rope above him. Now freed from the threat of hanging, he plunged into the sea. The dunking extinguished the flames and made him vomit the poison. He was dragged out of the water by a kind fisherman and was taken to a hospital, where he died of hypothermia.
bob_d 03 May 2007
Edited by bob_d, 03 May 2007 - 03:06 PM.
bgwowk 03 May 2007
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Flynn_effect
However with the movement from Usenet to AOL to discussion boards that anyone can access, the intelligence of online discussions has bucked the trend.
tamalak 03 May 2007
Hey, Cookie Monster! Where do you get the notion that futurists on average guess the Singularity is 120 years away??? Most of the prominent experts I have read about say around 2030-2050 it should actually happen.
To be honest, I don't remember. I remember reading that it's predicted to happen around 2120, but when I checked wikipedia it says 30 years like you do. 2030-2050 sounds way to early to me, but I'm just a cookie monster.. it seems like the experts agree with you.
Futurist1000 22 Jun 2007
1950_______________2.55____________________91.64
1975_______________4.08____________________90.80
2000_______________6.07____________________89.20
2025_______________7.82____________________87.81
2050_______________9.06____________________86.32
Global I.Q.
World I.Q.
Adult Literacy question (rough indicator of I.Q.)
QUESTION:
Find which energy source will supply more power in 2000 than it did in 1971, using this table. Estimated U.S. Power Consumption by Source (Quadrilion BTUs)
_________________1971___1980_____1985_____2000
Coal _____________18.2%__16.8%___16.8%____16.3%
Petroleum_________44.2%__43.9%___43.5%____37.2%
Natural Gas________32.9%__28.1%___24.3%____17.7%
Nuclear Power______6.0%____7.0%___10.1%____25.7%
Hydropower________4.1%____4.2%____3.7%_____3.1%
"Now if you said nuclear power, you figured out what 46% of adult Americans can't (and 71% of adults on this planet cannot either.) [I'm just using a normal distribution table here, with world literacy approximating world intelligence, that is about 90, with Americans at 100. standard deviations are 15 throughout."
Adult Literacy
Unfortunately I have realized that my I.Q. is probably about 5 points less than my dad. Looking at my cousins I see similar indications that their intelligence is not as high as their parents. This may be due to "regression towards the mean" but it is still similar in effect to dysgenics.
The Flynn effect (worldwide rise in I.Q. scores) appears to have ended (at least in Norway and Denmark)
End of Flynn Effect
Edited by hrc579, 22 June 2007 - 04:49 PM.
Live Forever 22 Jun 2007
It is kind of like grading on a curve, and this is how it appears (how it always appears, since it is continually equalized for where the population is at that moment):
However, in the studies, they are (I am sure) taking a set point, say, the year 2000 (or any year, it doesn't matter) and comparing everything in that year's "values". (much like is done when comparing the price of gas over long periods of time, equalized for inflation by using a certain year's dollar value)
Also, take a look at the Flynn effect that Dr. Wowk linked to above. Average intelligence is going up over time, not down. The reason it appears to go down on the chart used by hrc579 in the post above this one is because of population growth. In other words, if you have a lot more babies and young children around, of course average intelligence is going to be lower, because the babies and small children are not fully developed (and therefore bring the average down, and if they continually are growing at a larger rate, then they will continue to skew the results down). However, when you test one group year after year (for instance, 12th grade students every year) or one segment of the population year after year, then IQs do rise over time.
No one disputes the Flynn effect, it has been proven many times over.
Futurist1000 22 Jun 2007
"The Flynn Effect was probably due to better nutrition. Recent findings suggest that the Flynn effect has run its course and that general population IQ gains over time are reaching plateaus (Teasdale & Owen, 2005; Sundet, Barlaug, & Torjussen, 2004). "
Abstract
The present paper reports secular trends in the mean scores of a language, mathematics, and a Raven-like test together with a combined general ability (GA) score among Norwegian (male) conscripts tested from the mid 1950s to 2002 (birth cohorts ¡Ö1935¨C1984). Secular gains in standing height (indicating improved nutrition and health care) were also investigated. Substantial gains in GA were apparent from the mid 1950s (test years) to the end 1960s¨Cearly 1970s, followed by a decreasing gain rate and a complete stop from the mid 1990s. The gains seemed to be mainly caused by decreasing prevalence of low scorers. From the early 1970s, the secular gains in GA were almost exclusively driven by gains on the Raven-like test. However, even the means on this particular test stopped to increase after the mid to late 1990s. It is concluded that the Flynn effect may have come to an end in Norway. Height gains were strongly correlated with intelligence gains until the cessation of height gains in the conscript cohorts towards the end of the 1980s. Contrary to the intelligence gains, the height gains (conscript cohorts 1969¨C2002) were most pronounced in the upper half of the distribution. Evidence indicating decreasing intercorrelations between tests is reported.
Flynn Effect in Reverse
Live Forever 30 Jun 2007
http://bloggingheads...id=323&cid=1830
niner 01 Jul 2007
bob_d 02 Jul 2007
Futurist1000 02 Jul 2007
niner 03 Jul 2007
Some people want it, and have practiced it for generations. When your parents encourage you to marry someone who is smart and mentally healthy instead of someone who is "hot", they are practicing eugenics. As far as the technical feasibility of eugenics, it has to work in a statistical sense. Remember, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. All I have to do is look at my kids- there's my wife and I all over again. Not to mention our parents. Warts and all, as it were.I personally think eugenics is useless. People don't want it, and it is questionable how you would get it to work in a free society.
EmbraceUnity 08 Jul 2007
Edited by progressive, 08 July 2007 - 09:16 AM.
bob_d 08 Jul 2007
dave111 08 Jul 2007
I don't think we have much control over it, but if we're lucky, we'll solve SENS and some other problems well before we create entities smarter than us and that have incentives to expand their computational resources at speeds approaching the speed of light.
As for eugenics/dysgenics -I don't think relatively dumb people are any more of a problem than all the other relatively dumb life on planet earth. In fact, if they are getting less intelligent, then they'll be easier to manage: think of the relative ease in managing a pet hamster as oppposed to a pet monkey.
But, since our best resources at solving difficult problems are still very smart people, and since intelligence seems to have a substantial hereditary component, I'd like to see a more aggressive and rational version of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank reinstated. Specifically, I think we should provide financial incentives (so there's no coercive element) and moral encouragement for the men and women living today who demonstrate the best aptitude at solving the most difficult existential problems humanity faces to donate their sperm and egg, for us to create embryos in vitro with them, for us to recruit surrogate mothers to carry them to term in healthy environments and for us to recruit adopting parents to give them healthy formative environments.
We can then create trusts that will provide the children with positive financial incentives to complete advanced education in fields that will facilitate their ability to solve the existential threats we face.
What I like about this approach is that it's completely legal under current law and it violates no existing social norms about human dignity, life, and autonomy.
niner 09 Jul 2007
But these hamsters can vote.As for eugenics/dysgenics -I don't think relatively dumb people are any more of a problem than all the other relatively dumb life on planet earth. In fact, if they are getting less intelligent, then they'll be easier to manage: think of the relative ease in managing a pet hamster as oppposed to a pet monkey.
cognition 13 Jul 2007
marcopolo 14 Sep 2007
It is apparent that most people who post in these forums have a high IQ, it would be interesting to see what people here think of Langan and his ideas. Apparently he is not a transhumanist or singlitarian.
Edited by marcopolo, 14 September 2007 - 09:15 AM.
marcopolo 17 Sep 2007
Edited by marcopolo, 18 September 2007 - 07:18 AM.
simple 18 Sep 2007
The imbeciles have turned against the idiots!!!!
How low we will fall???
sponsored ad
wiserd 22 Nov 2007
Every government run eugenics program in history seems to have failed miserably to achieve it's goal. Look at the landmark case of Buck v. Bell where Carrie Buck was sterilized and committed essentially because she was raped.
Ultimately, the biggest drain on society seems to be criminal behavior rather than sheer stupidity. There are some who believe that criminal behavior is associated with low IQ. I don't know if I share that view. I think stupid criminals are just more likely to get caught, and less likely to be able to use legal means to achieve their goals. But assuming that it's true, the best eugenics program is just well enforced laws.
And while there have been eugenics programs in many countries, socialized countries like National Socialist Germany and Socialist Sweeden have been the worst. Because social payment for goods means I have a vested interest in my neighibor's behaviors.